Talk:Ben & Jerry's/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Ben & Jerry's. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Response

In the PETA, i do believe I saw a response on Youtube. Im not sure if its official, though. And off topic, SOYLENT MILK! Its people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dacheatcode (talk • contribs) 23:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Article title

Wouldn't it be more logical for this article to be located at Ben & Jerry's, since that is the brand name? --taestell 20:28, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. --Holdek ^(talk) 21:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Why the specific mention of lifeworks, but no general mention of partnershops? Lifeworks may or may not be the newest, but there are quite a few. I think the original is in NYC... --69.201.143.180 05:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Why isn't there any mention of Jamal and the police boycott's of Ben and Jerry's products? Also, it should mention Ben Cohen's view on the Iraq war, and themarines that are also boycotting the products.

Why isn't there a section about the dioxin controversy like here? They came out against dioxin and companies that had it present in their food, only to later realize that as a dairy product their products had over 200x the "safe amount".

It should also be mentioned that two characters in "Cityslickers" were based directly off of Ben and Jerry of Ben and Jerry's.

Why are they described as "dedicated hippies" when dedicated hippies would never sell out to a huge multinational like Unilever? 213.107.46.70 07:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the dedicated hippies part off. 213.107.46.70 13:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Ben and Jerry's is famous for its leftist slant."

This is pure hyperbole. B&J is famous for its premium ice cream, not its "leftist slant." Cedlaod 23:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure they are. The company's founders have always been left-leaning activists... just visit the web site if you need proof:

http://www.benjerry.com/our_company/our_values/

You'll find links to everything from 50 Ways To Support Peace to Environmental Action included on this link. These are traditionally causes supported by the left. Of course, I wonder what the liberals would say about Ben and Jerry selling out to a huge multinational corporation like Unilever... --M.Neko 18:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because they are leftist doesn't mean they are famous for it. It should be included that they are leftists but "famous" shouldn't be used as it makes it sound like that's the only reason people know about Ben & Jerry's.

Ben and Jerry are famous as individuals for their attempts to stir social activism into the ice cream. This is not leftist, just their take on the world which is perfectly OK for them to have and for Wikipedia to discuss. Among other experiments, B&J Inc was a one of several companies of the era that tried to narrow the salary spread from highest to lowest (at one time, I believe, the ratio was fixed at <6:1) but this company rule was abandoned when the ice cream became popular and senior managers started to get higher salaries. (It would not be possible to pass the cost of million-dollar a year forklift drivers on to the consumer, nor would it be possible to keep good management staff at 6 times an average forklift driver's salary.) The abandonment of the salary rule is a legitimate topic of Wikipedia discussion too and need not be called leftist or rightist or purple. The personal opinions of people being profiled, as publicly expressed (there are loads of positive and negative refs to B&J corporate social policies and changes) are not only allowed, but should be welcomed! Parsnip13 12:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

---

I was wondering where the discussion of the 6:1 ratio was. Before they had to revise it, they actually stated this policy directly on every package. This was a cornerstone of their company philosophy, and a significant, failed experiment that had broad visibility. There should certainly be a section on this because it was closely observed by economists during its course and is now a common case study in economics.

Summer Rose Hutter

I removed this sentence from the opening paragraph: "In their will they left Ben and Jerry's to Summer Rose Hutter who at the time was only 1 years old, so when she is eighteen she will inherit it."

Not only does thise sentence seem to imply that ben and jerry are dead but raises more questions, Who is Summer Rose Hutter? why did they leave thier busniess to here? when did this happen?

fell free to reinsert this piece of information of course adding some detail so it make sense. Kejoxen 22:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

They sold the business to Unilever in 2000. No way it's going to this Summer Rose Hutter person, whoever she is. --M.Neko 18:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert gets a flavor named after him

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070214/ap_en_tv/people_stephen_colbert

This should probably be added. I was going to add it, but the current paragraph says "musicians", and I don't feel like starting a new paragraph for it since I'm silly. BrainRotMenacer 03:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

bobby seale controversy

i'm having a hard time finding any material describing bobby seale's relationship with the company as "controversial" - this needs to be cited

Proposal to merge with Ben & Jerry's flavors

I strongly disagree. The flavors list was previously in the main article and moved out as its size was overpowering. It will always suffer from high volume, unsourced edits which only detract from the importance of the main article. Please leave it as it is (ie. separate). —Moondyne 05:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's also a very obvious list, not an article. I moved it to List of Ben & Jerry's flavors.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems kind of silly to me to move it to List of Ben & Jerry's flavors, being that everything is under the article tab anyway, but whatever. --Chunk Champion 17:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a consensus on this merge? If not, I will remove the merge tag within the week as it is over a month old now.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 14:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Huge Parts Still To Be Written

Why has the ice cream been so popular? Because it’s chunky! I remember reading that Ben Cohen does not have much of a sense of taste, so he primarily relies on mouth texture in judging a favor. That makes sense, but I’d like to have this confirmed with a source we can include as a footnote.

At the beginning of our “Talk” section, we have a comment about the former 10 to 1 policy. I remember it as a 7 to 1 policy. The highest paid employer could not be paid more than 7 times the lowest paid employee. But the company discontinued this some years before they sold to Unilever (it was felt that discontinuing the policy was necessary in order to get a wider pool of CEO candidates).

Then there’s the whole issue of a socially responsible business. If you talk about socially responsible businesses, Ben & Jerry’s is the number one example. And the deal where, for a particular flavor of ice cream, a certain percentage of profit goes to a particular and related good cause, people just love that. But it hasn’t always been smooth sailing, and Ben Cohen is very much a human being. Google “Ben Jerry's swinegate” (ice cream runoff feed to pigs caused symptoms suspiciously similar to arteriosclerosis, and Ben was not initially forthcoming about this). And then there’s the far more serious issue with Rainforest Crunch, “The anticipated source for the nuts-the Xapuri cooperative of white, former Portuguese rubber tappers-never produced the necessary quality or quantity. To meet exploding demand, Ben & Jerry's turned to the commercial markets supplied by some of the most notorious, anti-labor agribusinesses in Latin American, including the Mutran family, convicted of killing labor organizers” [1] . Wow, that’s some pretty serious stuff. I hope it’s not true, but I can all too easily see it being true. The suppliers get labeled as merely “conventional,” that creates a moral distance with what’s really going on. And, for whatever reason, the people making these decisions don’t want to get into the details, don’t want to have the awkward task of trying to make distinctions between bad and worse.

(To their credit, some of this situation was discussed in Ben & Jerry’s 1995 Annual Report.)

The way a socially responsible business is supposed to work is that you pay a little bit more for the confidence that things are being done right, and consumers in turn are paying a little bit more to support this. But you may not be able to immediately go into a culture you’re unfamiliar with and start doing good things. You may need to start much slower. So, the bottom line, you may not get that many nuts for the popular ice cream if it truly is sustainable harvest and if the workers and communities truly are being treated as partners. Rainforest Crunch may be only occasionally available. That may be one of the compromises you need to make. It can’t be the standard corporate thing of trying to maximize profit.

And for the rest of us, maybe a hierarchical organization where we so count on one individual (Ben), and then are disappointed, maybe that’s not the way to go. Maybe a moderate dose of de-centralizing and a goodly dose of transparency would much better serve us.

Let’s include this in our article, with as many details as we can and as many references as with can. Let’s lay it on the table! Help if you can. FriendlyRiverOtter 05:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

updated the info about Ben & jerry's CEO

His name is Walt Freese, but somebody didn;t believe that so here is the source http://www.benjerry.com/our_company/press_center/press/WaltFreeseAnnouncement.html Mtl1969 15:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Something should be added about Ben and Jerry's former policy of the highest payed employie making no more than 10 times that of the lowest payed one. How about the label over the spsific type of milk they do not use?

-You mean the line that now says: "When still privately owned, they instilled a power of ten policy, where no employee could earn more than 10 times another. This was disbanded later on when board members demanded higher salaries for themselves."

This does not have a source. In addition, the John Stossel special entitled "greed" said the reason they got rid of the rule was because they weren't attracting good candidates for top-level positions.

Another Reference

In the show "Ham on the Street" where they try new methods of making ice cream, George anounces that the judges will be Ben and Jerry, but when they show the judges George says due to budget issues we had to get a phone book and find a guy named Ben and a guy named Jerry. --24.123.188.12 18:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

As wikipedia is trying to get rid of trivia sections, I have tried to make separate headings which made sense for topics in the section. If it doesn't seem to work please feel free to change, but I think it is a good path.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 05:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ben and jerry logo.gif

Image:Ben and jerry logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo of Cherry Garcia<--Is it chunkier down below the top?

I’m glad we’ve included the photo. This helps to show what it’s all about. I also like the photo of the scoop shop in Singapore, which I did not know was there, but which does not entirely surprise me.

Big chunks in the ice cream, as I understand it, that is their claim to fame and fortune. They may have been the very first company that did this who achieved any kind of large-scale or even regional distribution within the United States. But, if not the very first, they were the first ones who really, really caught on. So, are there in fact bigger chunks in the Cherry Garcia besides what’s shown on the smooth top? Or how about the “Chunky Monkey,” with fudge and walnuts. Or Rainforest Crunch? Or their cookie dough ice cream, which as I remember it, is not just smooth flavor, it’s little round frozen balls of cookie dough. (Yeah, I have had their ice cream, but it has been a little while. These days, I’m trying to lose some weight. And the key number on the package, well, it’s not the number of calories, and it’s not the number of grams of saturated fat, it is the number 4, as in 4 servings per pint!) FriendlyRiverOtter 20:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Flavour

There was a section called Flavour, with a link that also had flavour in it, I'm aware this is the British way to spell it, but on Wikipedia, its spelled Flavor, so I changed it, and now the link works, just thought I should share that C. Pineda 00:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

They also spell it that way in Canada. --MahaPanta (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

last section needs cleanup, not deletion

Inclusion of the last section, in terms of cultural references in media, I feel is appropriate and within Wikipedia guidelines. The way it is presented however definitely lacks the formatting and clarity standards of Wikipedia articles.

Also, a large part of the brands success has been its relevance as a cultural icon and not just an ice cream brand. As such, the omission of information regarding cultural and media references would only make the article less informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darqcyde (talk • contribs) 23:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Innovations

From what I remember, Ben and Jerry's invented the "chocolate chip cookie dough" flavor. I suspect they were also a big player, along with Haagen Das, in popularizing "premium" ice cream, i.e. made with less air churned in, now quite common. I guess the point being that they had an important role in the history of ice cream products in the last thirty years or so and their influence should be noted.

Dmbaguley (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely poor writing

This page for B&J's is probably one of the most poorly-written items I've seen for a major company on Wikipedia. The main body of the article is nothing but a cascading list of dates that reads like it was cribbed from a corporate timeline of notable events. There's nothing about the history or motivation behind the creation of the company. There's nothing about the development of the formula for the ice cream. There's nothing interesting about this article and it reads like it is a fourth grader's book report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.75.198 (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

New section

I have added a section regarding the social, economic and product missions, but independent sources for this information should be located (and not just the company web site). This unique set of missions was one of the ways that Ben and Jerry's was able to obtain the "Small Business of the Year" award, and should be featured more prominently in the article. Tech Lovr (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Dislike the lede

Ben and Jerry's is notable, and came to fame, during its Ben and Jerry era between 1978 and 2000. It is not famous or notable merely because it is now a Unilever brand. I think the first sentence should state that B&J was founded by B&J in 1978 and that it became notable for a combination of the way they made the ice cream (hard and dense, with Vermont milk and little overrun IIRC) in tandem with their public image for social activism. The second sentence should note that they became a Unilever property in 2000. Also, I don't see any mention of the original style of ice cream being hard and dense.

For the record, I was most familiar with B&J in Montreal in the early 1990s, and in Montreal at that time B&J was hard and dense. They had a flavour called Tennessee Mud which contained pralines and Jack Daniels. It was too bitter for most people, they tried to warn me away every time I bought it, so it was no surprise that it was soon discontinued. I couldn't go there afterwards, because I suffered too many pangs over my precious Mud. MaxEnt (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. Ben & Jerry's is a Vermont brand, inseparably associated with Vermont. It would be like starting the Volvo article with "Volvo is a subsidiary of Chinese car manufacturer Geely Motors." --TimothyDexter (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Updated by GregorS Dec 2010 (Ford no longer owns Volvo, Geely does!)

I just removed some wording about Unilever. It used to say (paraphrased) "Ben & Jerry's is an American ice cream company, a division of Unilever (although no reference to Unilever is made on packaging), that manufactures ice cream." Now it says "Ben & Jerry's is an American ice cream company, a division of Unilever, that manufactures ice cream." The original wording felt like one step too far in terms of bias: a true statement that strongly suggests a certain point of view, namely that the company is hiding something by leaving this off the package. The sentence went far out of its way to mention this. If there are truly a lot of people out there concerned about this corporate relationship, then they deserve mention farther down the article, with links to sources (e.g. news media coverage) that mention their concerns. Do I care if the opening sentence mentions Unilever? No, I don't care. For me, that's not a step too far, so I left it in. For reference, the wording I removed was added by User:AEMoreira042281. --Officiallyover (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I'm opposed to merging Stephen Colbert's AmeriCone Dream into this article. (I'm not speaking for or against the other proposed mergers, Vermonster and Chubby Hubby (Ben & Jerry's flavor)). Unlike the other flavors, I think there are sufficient secondary sources about Stephen Colbert's AmeriCone Dream to warrant a separate article. If need be, I'd like the chance to expand it a bit before the merge to prove that notability. — Hun ter Ka hn 00:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What more do you think can be said about the flavor other than its quick history and existence? Is there reception, creation, etc type information that would support a fuller article versus just being a stub? Feel free to work on it to expand and source it to show that there is too much info to merge here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm for the merge only if we can also merge the other 500 flavors. If not then I'm opposed.--Chunk Champion (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You've already stated this below. There are NOT articles on 500 flavors. There is nothing to merge from any other flavors. We are discussing ONLY the flavors that currently have articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said there was articles on 500 flavors. And I agree that the discussion is about the three flavors that currently have articles. I oppose that merge. I thought that was made clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunk Champion (talk • contribs) 20:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine, however considering your behavior the last few days, your view really has little bearing at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur to AnmaFinotera's first comment. In other words, Support. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 07:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Break

Noob here... what is the point of the countries listings when they relate to a general listing of that country and add nothing to the B&J stores. Maybe missing the point but seriously WHY?

Break

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This section of the discussion has been closed due to User:Chunk Champion clear lack of intent to discuss the merge proposed, per his continued edit warring and WP:POINTed vandalism on various other ice cream articles due to the deletion of the two Ben & Jerry's flavor lists.

I'm for the merge only if we can also merge the other 500 flavors. If not then keep them separate. --Chunk Champion (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There are no other flavors to merge. Wikipedia is not a catalog. Only some of the flavors have received any coverage worth noting. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Every flavor has a story.--Chunk Champion (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

None worth telling. The list was deleted because the flavors are not notable. There are a few flavors that received brief coverage because of their names/origin, those may be worth highlighting here. Not all of them however. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The flavors are either notable or not notable. You can't pick favorites.--Chunk Champion (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The flavors as a whole are not notable. Obviously NONE of them are notable which is why they are proposed for merging here. And it isn't "picking favorites" its covering them as the sources cover them which is what Wikipedia does. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Two statements ago you said some were notable. Now none of them are. Either way is fine for me but lets be clear. You wouldn't merge them to a page if they were not notable, you would delete them. The sources cover all of the flavors, not three.--Chunk Champion (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No, merging is sometimes appropriate for dealing with unnotable topics, and I meant a different kind of notable. Your list of all flavors was neither notable nor important to note here. It was deleted. I'd suggest you move on. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Merging unnotable topics would not make those topics notable, it would just create a collection of unnotables. The discussion we are having currently is about the proposed merging of a few select flavors, not some past deleted page. I'd suggest you move on.--Chunk Champion (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who needs to move on. You've gotten more than enough warnings on your talk page. And as you clearly have no actual intention of discussing the merge properly, I see no reason for you to involve yourself at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been discussing the merge properly. Please stay on subject. Do you have an answer for my previous logical conclusion or no? Thank you. --Chunk Champion (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

When you make a logical conclusion, I will have an answer. As it is, you are continuing your pointed, disruptive behavior across multiple pages. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

So that's a no then.--Chunk Champion (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm closing this section as your remarks clearly indicate that you have no intention of actually discussing the mergers proposed, but instead continue to either demand that your illegal lists, which were also WP:COPYVIO from the Ben & Jerry's site, be restored, or that all flavors be removed. If you feel the articles proposed for merger should not exist at all, then go nominate them for deletion. However be aware that your continued actions regarding these ice cream articles have already put you on the road to being blocked, and any more WP:POINTed actions will only increase that block. As I cautioned you on your talk page, you need to step back and take a break and get over it. Continuing on this path is not conducive to your editing future. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

too many mergers

I fear that wikipedia has long since abandoned its stated goal of being a comprehensive encyclopedia. The vermonster page was whittled down to nothing for absolutely no reason with no discussion on the discussion page. Then the fact that it was so small allowed some to unilaterally merge vermonster with this page. Does reason matter anymore? or is it simply a mishmosh of post hoc rationalizations of why something should be taken off due to the whims of one of the "so called moderators." Heres a suggestion: maybe those who have the time to sit on wikipedia all day and "moderate" aren't exactly the type of people who really should be in the position to censor other peoples words.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.100.17 (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A separate page for each B&J product would be absurd. Wikipedia is not intended to cover every single minor detail of every single item on the face of the Earth with an individual article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Why does Cherry Garcia redirect to this page when there isn't even a single mention of it anywhere in the article? I had to go into the history of Cherry Garcia to find information I was looking for. Color me disappointed. -Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.151.25 (talk) 14:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've redirected to List of Ben & Jerry's ice creams.—Bagumba (talk) 18:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE FIRST COMMENT. I am sick of moderators "deciding what is okay" because it's "absurd." Why is it absurd? it's supposed to be a comprehensive encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.100.17 (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Everyone is encourage to make bold edits. If there is still a disagreement, you can discuss and help build consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Schweddy Balls controversy removed?

I was going to add a reference to Schweddy Balls but noticed that previous additions have been removed already. In a nutshell, this has garnered national media attention because of a Christian rights group who threatened to boycott supermarkets that carry the product. Sounds like a legitimate controversy to me. Why have all mentions been removed? 173.13.126.9 (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Socially responsible businesses

Please look at the content of Category:Socially responsible businesses. This edit was inappropriate, see http://www.benjerry.com/activism/ Whether their activism is objectively socially responsible is not at issue; however, it is quite clear they hold themselves out as being so. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The category name doesn't differentiate between subjective and objective criteria. It just says point blank "soccially responsible businesses", which is why I think it's an inappropriate form of categorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly Category:Social entrepreneurship could be used, but a subcategory seems more appropriate. It is clearly notable as was shown by the appearance of Ben and Jerry recently at the National Press Club where they discussed their support of Occupy Wall Street. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

So who decides what is actually "socially responsible"? Where is the rulebook on that to qualify? Many conglomerates do charity work. Take Petsmart. They donate food to dog shelters. I'm sorry, but that category is reprehensible, not to mention monotonous. Any company who ever does any social kind of work should and would qualify. The audacity that someone actually came up with this amazes me. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 15:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

HIstory is a rip from company release

The history is a word for word rip from an internal company history available from the corporate tools for franchisees. I believe this would mean it should be tagged as "Written like an advertisement" what does everyone else think? Or is there a more appropriate tag for this?

Odrinn (talk) 9:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a ref to http://www.benjerry.com/company/history/. It doesnt look like a pure cut and paste, but some individual sentences still bear very close resemblance. More footnotes are probably needed as well. Not sure about the franchisee material you refer to, but you can follow WP:COPYVIO if you believe there is a problem.—Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't post a link to the material in the franchise portal, it would violate the franchise agreement to make it available to anyone else, but I can assure you that the history section is a word for word cut and paste of an internal marketing tool, and to me that would justify flagging it for sounding too much like an advertisement. At the very lest, shouldn't more of the history have cited references?-Odrinn (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2012

89.100.71.77 (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC) The whole article looks like an advertisement to me and is unworhty of Wikipedia. I looked up "Controversies" but that section is a joke. Jewish human rights groups have serious concerns about this multinational company who retain the pleasant name of the original owners. The article should be re-examined for bias in favour of the company and large portions deleted

Additional sources

I found:

Criswell, Ann. "Ben & Jerry's is sweet on social issues." Houston Chronicle. Wednesday June 24, 1992. Food p. 1.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The link Walsh, Erica (October 2009). "Extreme Pig Outs: Meals That Will Blow Your Mind and Tip the Scale". Travel Channel. is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.43.130 (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Mumia

It looks like the references for the Mumia Abu-Jamal controversy, references 34 and 35, are now dead links. Can we get these pages from archive.org or cite other sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:5200:6D6:B9DC:BDBD:A46E:2F7D (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Need to add section on whether the sale to Unilever was a sell-out / forced / etc.

I see conflicting claims here, many say B&J was forced to accept the sale by their stockholders, "These fears are exacerbated by cautionary tales of investor-led board takeovers of private companies and stories like the iconic forced sale of Ben & Jerry’s to Unilever." However, this seems to be a myth. I think it would be good to cover this point in the article. See The Truth about Ben & Jerry's. WilliamKF (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Controversy section needs work

It seems that the controversy portion concerning the Israeli factories and distribution has strayed very far from discussion of Ben and Jerrys into a broader soapbox. I would propose that someone trim that section down to only include the portions relevant to Ben and Jerry's. As it stands this section reads very much as activist editing, and educates more about the VTJP agenda than Ben and Jerry's.

50.232.41.77 (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The entire Controversies section should be expanded and should be the first section in place of History. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penultimatewarrior (talk • contribs) 00:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Easy answer-you cannot have a controversy without a history behind it. Harder answer-that would go against the Manual of Style.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Dioxin

Ben & Jerry's once claimed "there is no safe exposure to dioxin” on their carton labels. Then when testing showed their icecream to have 200 times the EPA "safe" level of dioxin they just changed the label and then backtracked on how dangerous dioxin is. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=124165 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuddhistSagan (talk • contribs) 22:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Ben & Jerry's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ben & Jerry's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130529103045/http://www.benjerry.com:80/flavors/greek? to http://www.benjerry.com/flavors/greek

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that link 6 is not a good reference here's a better one https://web.archive.org/web/20100504220723/http://www.rezoom.com:80/money/from-the-vault/read/5679 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.37.54 (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

So many controversies missing!

There's the support of "occupy Wall Street," which resulted in a total fail. There's the support of stopping drilling for oil, which is more than a little controversial since our lawmakers can't seem to make a decision on it. There's the support of a fair trade commitment when in fact the company is actually owned by a European company who has no say in what America does. I can go on and on! So why is all of this ignored? These are serious problems as half of America disagrees with much of this, despite whether we like it or not. I personally support some things that they've been whipped about. However, what I think doesn't matter. We are supposed to remain unbiased and report things in full. Now, when I say in full, I mean serious problems. Naming ice creams and complaints about each and every name that was complained about is not at all necessary. The controversy is a single thing: someone didn't like the name. I think a simple paragraph describing their problems with naming ice creams along with some examples will be enough. If someone wants to make a separate page detailing all the naming controversies then that's up to them. Besides, B&J has made a number of gaffes on the naming thing so it would be difficult to list them all within a single article. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 16:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Ben & Jerry's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0%2C%2C20121051%2C00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/10683254.html?dids=10683254%3A10683254&FMT=ABS
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080504162557/http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/qa/documents/03073228.asp to http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/qa/documents/03073228.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100416053210/http://ga3.org/campaign/CloneTracking to http://ga3.org/campaign/CloneTracking
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.benjerry.com/flavors/greek-frozen-yogurt
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/tmt/311897.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.ex.payequity15may15%2C0%2C7160910.story?page=2
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/qa/documents/03073228.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ben & Jerry's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Protests against Adani group

I'm reverting the following edit (oldid=840377486):

From October 2017, mostly during Queensland state election, Ben & Jerry’s has urged its customers and online followers to sign petitions on 350.org for local councils to divest and forbid fossil fuels, and send messages to both Annastacia Palaszczuk and Tim Nicholls through local MPs, urge both to defund proposed Adani Group Carmichael coal mine and coal transport railway if one or the another won, as a desperate attempt to influence election.

There is probably something worth documenting by someone who knows more about Australian politics than I do. Certainly "as a desperate attempt to influence election" has no place in an encyclopedia article, but it appears as though this may noteworthy enough to document correctly:

Butler, Josh (2017-03-24). "George Christensen Is Boycotting Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2018-05-09.

(see this ^^ citation) -- RobLa (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Why Burlington ?

What made the founders decide to start the business in Burlington and not in New York or Ohio? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.89.248.64 (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Criticism...

Collapse suggested edit by indefinitely blocked editor --Calton | Talk 02:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ben and Jerry's suggested edits, new section "Criticism"

Criticism...Ben & Jerry's refuses to halt operations in illegal Israeli settlements

"Ben & Jerry's has pretended to advocate for social justice for far too long while simultaneously profiting from the oppression of the Palestinian people"...https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2021/06/12/decolonize-burlington-says-boycott-ben-and-jerrys-due-israel-ties/7652680002/

"Ice cream brand has been vocal advocate for Black Lives Matter movement, but refuses to halt operations in illegal Israeli settlements"...https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/progressive-ice-cream-ben-jerry-freezes-when-it-comes-palestine

"In violation of their social mission, their Israeli franchise sells ice cream in illegal, Jewish-only settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, transported on Jewish-only roads, on trucks with Jewish-only license plates, passing easily through military checkpoints that bedevil others."...https://icecream.vtjp.org/

"Avi Zinger, founder and CEO of Ben & Jerry’s Israel"...https://www.jpost.com/magazine/cookies-n-cream-and-tikkun-olam-575562

Photo "CEO, Ben & Jerry’s Israel, and his wife, Debbie Zinger." Relocation of the US Embassy to Israel’s Capital...https://jewishaction.com/inside-the-ou/marking-historic-relocation-us-embassy-israels-capital/...SteveBenassi (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

"The silence is atypical for a company famously founded by two Jewish hippies in Vermont. Ben & Jerry’s, which launched in 1978, is known for its marketing strategy of appealing to social justice values. "...https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/boycott-israel-no-ben-and-jerrys-is-boycotting-social-media-671245...SteveBenassi (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Ben's Best Bernie flavors

I moved all info on Bernie flavors to the Ben Cohen page, as B&J repeated clearly that the flavors were not from B&J. I also removed info on Ben and Jerry getting arrested long after any formal association with B&J. Only their activist actions associated with the ice cream company belong on the page for the ice cream company. Jbbdude (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Unilever era: divestment from the "Occupied Palestinian Territory".

The final paragraph of the Unilever era section currently reads:

On 19 July 2021, it was announced that Ben & Jerry's plans to boycott "the Occupied Palestinian Territory," generally presumed in this context to mean West Bank settlements and Jewish neighborhoods of east Jerusalem. However, Anuradha Mittal, chairwoman of Ben & Jerry's Independent Board of Directors, said: "The statement released by Ben & Jerry's regarding its operation in Israel and the Occupied Palestine Territory does not reflect the position of the Independent Board nor was it approved by the Independent Board." In fact, the Ben & Jerry Board wanted to boycott Israel entirely, but was stopped from doing so by Unilever. Avi Zinger, CEO of Ben & Jerry's Israel, the franchisee in Israel since 1987, said he was unwilling to refuse to sell the ice cream to Israeli citizens in settlements and was legally prevented from doing so. In consequence, the company plans not to renew the franchise in 2022. The decision may also run foul of anti-boycott of Israel laws in place in many US states.[2][3]

Some points:

The word "boycott" does not appear in the sources and, for those who see a difference between boycotting and divestment for example, its use may not be seen as appropriate or neutral. The statement released by Unilever on behalf of Ben & Jerry's and any subsequent comments made by members of the Ben & Jerry's board do not refer to a boycott either.
The text reading "presumed in this context to mean West Bank settlements and Jewish neighborhoods of east Jerusalem" is editorialising.
The text about the statement by Anuradha Mittal is confusing. The statement about the ending of sales was released by Unilever, who inserted the part about continuing sales in Israel without consulting the independent board of Ben & Jerry's. The current article text reads as though Mittal is criticising Ben & Jerry's itself.
There is no evidence in the sources used that "the Ben & Jerry Board wanted to boycott Israel entirely, but was stopped from doing so by Unilever." That looks like a misunderderstanding of what the sources actually do say, which is that, apparently, Unilever inserted text in the released statement about continuing operations in Israel without consulting the Ben & Jerry's board. The point is that the Ben & Jerry's board had not voted on whether to change the way Ben & Jerry's operates in Israel.
There is confusion in the article relating to how "the company plans not to renew the franchise in 2022", the company previously referred to being the Israeli franchisee rather than Ben & Jerry's itself. So, Ben & Jerry's plans not to renew the franchise awarded tp Ben & Jerry's Israel once the franchise agreement runs out in 2022.

← ZScarpia 12:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This issue is covered separately in the "Political" section. The two versions should be suitably merged. I prefer the version in "Political" so have a look to see what you think. Regarding your points:

I did see "boycott" mentioned in one source (forget which) but I don't recall an example being provided.
the "presumed ... " clause sounds like it comes from one of the sources I read (again forgot which). We should just leave it at OPT as in the statement.
I would leave out the separate statement about Unilever, which I think may have been sourced to Twitter.
Do we need to mention how B&J plan to implement their plan of not selling in OPT?

Burrobert (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I misread the context in which you referred to the term "boycott". I agree that "boycott" is not how B&J's decision should be described.
I suspect that the clause beginning ""presumed ... " comes from the USA Today article which starts off "Ben & Jerry's announced plans to end sales of their ice cream in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and contested east Jerusalem ... ". The editor has added the word "presumed" for some unknown reason. OPT is a more accurate description of the area affected.

Burrobert (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Faith of founders

Why is it important that the religion of the founders be listed in the history section? The Wikipedia articles for each founder include that information. Why is it relevant to the ice cream company? I removed this extraneous information unrelated to the company, and it was immediately re-added by a frequent editor of the page. I'm entirely unsure as to why. Jbbdude (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Largely because you provided no good reason at the time as to why it should be removed. But if you would like a reason as to why it should possibly stay: Since the recent actions of Ben & Jerry's to alter its franchise arrangement in Israel, it has frequently had charges of anti-Semitism levelled at its board, so it is evidently somewhat useful to make clear for the uninitiated that its founding board members are Jewish. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Ben and Jerrys antisemitism allegations.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

What is it?

Is BnJs ice cream or gelato? --188.155.66.174 (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Faith of founders

I raised this issue earlier. I don't understand why so many biographical details about the company's founders are shoved into the company's article, particularly the founders' faith/ethnic background. I was told the reason why the founders' Judaism was included on the company page was to defuse claims of anti-Semitism regarding the Israel controversy. I don't think a Wikipedia article should seek to advance any side's position in a given controversy. I also don't see how it's relevant to that controversy, as the founders are not on the Board of Directors, weren't on the board when the decision was made, haven't/hadn't been for many, many years, etc. It seems like a pretty transparent attempt to tie the company to an idea of being somehow Jewish by osmosis or name or something. I haven't seen founders' faiths mentioned in too many company histories on Wikipedia. The shared high school is a part of the founding story of the business, but as far as I'm aware, the founders' Judaism was never really part of the company story in any noteworthy way. If it is relevant to the company history, I would be curious to learn how. Jbbdude (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jbbdude: The religion of the founders is transparent, public and prominent. I quote: "We are the founders of Ben & Jerry’s. We are also proud Jews. It’s part of who we are and how we’ve identified ourselves for our whole lives." from the New York Times piece entitled "We’re Ben and Jerry. Men of Ice Cream, Men of Principle." Both of them are still employed at the company, and Cohen remained on the board after 2000. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Physical locations for Ben & Jerry's

There should be a section that talks about the addition of physical locations of Ben & Jerry's icecream stores. And also about store development over the years. Btw, was gonna add about New Zealand stores being added; according to NZ Herald, the first Ben & Jerry's as a physical store in New Zealand was in Central Auckland, or at least this article annouces such. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 07:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Indian Lands

Surprise, surprise, a leading "Indian" spokesperson has taken up the idea and says he'd like to have his band of "Indians" land back, the HQ of Ben & Jerry's was erected on--2001:9E8:565B:6800:B87B:B2D0:FC51:5C60 (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

That information has been synthesized by a fellow editor in the article. I think the community would be more than happy to add more information if a follow-up is issued by the company (spoiler alert: they won't issue a response to the request for giving the land back) EytanMelech (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Israel and Palestinian Territories/West Bank exit

The sub-sections "Sales in Israel and Palestinian Territories" and "Exit from West Bank" overlap some extent. Maybe ZScarpia, Burrobert, Iskandar323 and Jbbdude they should be merged. Before noticing the overlapping I updated the sentence now starting "In 2019" in the "Sale of company ..." sub-section which now also relates to the subject.

Perhaps also the releasing of the statement, apparently by B&J but actually by Unilever, ^[1] should be mentioned. Mcljlm (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Speaking for myself, I'd say that you should go ahead and make the changes you think would be beneficial.

Regarding statements issued by Unilever, if you think clarification is needed that they were issued by Unilever rather than the independent B+J board, go ahead. It is noted in at least one place that the B+J board reacted to one of the statements.

I made the following change to text about anti-BDS laws and policies in US states, which was an attempt to simplify the content, to remove what looked like slight editorialising and to clarify that the laws and policies are 'anti-BDS' rather than 'anti-Boycott' (as per the cited source): [4]

← ZScarpia 09:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/ben-jerry-s-withdraws-sales-israeli-settlements-clashes-parent-company-n1274403

[1] ttps://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/ben-jerry-s-withdraws-sales-israeli-settlements-clashes-parent-company-n1274403

[1]